tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post5124365897296850228..comments2019-11-12T22:29:17.410+00:00Comments on McCabism: The branch tapping at the windowpaneGordon McCabehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-46230212545112102442009-02-21T09:57:00.000+00:002009-02-21T09:57:00.000+00:00Correct, Bob. You basically establish a superposit...Correct, Bob. You basically establish a superposition:<BR/><BR/>v(1) x w(1) + v(2) x w(2)<BR/><BR/>where v(1) and v(2) are possible states of one particle, and w(1) and w(2) are possible states of the other particle. <BR/><BR/>You know that when you measure the entangled system, the state will collapse into either v(1) x w(1) or v(2) x w(2), so you know that the states of the systems are correlated, but you don't know which correlated state you will find.Gordon McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09151162643523937086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37936507.post-39371646709609665652009-02-21T06:07:00.000+00:002009-02-21T06:07:00.000+00:00I like to think that separated entangled particles...I like to think that separated entangled particles are 'not really' separated. That would be the spooky connection, we just call it spooky because we don't know what it is yet.<BR/><BR/>Of course, opening the doors for such assumptions is very unsientific.<BR/><BR/>Or I like to think that it is just logical that two 'entangled' particles behave in the same way. The thing is, as I understand it, we cannot force one particle to be in a certain state and thereby forcing the second particle to be in a certain state; we can just measure the first one and and then assert that the twin particle did the same thing.<BR/><BR/>Could you please explain the phenomenon ? :-)Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02040537651843418484noreply@blogger.com